Ron Paul "Constitutionally Correct" For President 2012

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Another Examiner.com article prompted this piece. While it might be easier to simply respond to the other column's claims (many of which are rather ludicrous), the current times seem to suggest that it correlates more with common sense to look towards the future, including Ron Paul's election to the presidency.

1. Paul will abolish the Federal Reserve

Since its formation in 1913, America's private bank has contributed to loss of value in the dollar as well as multiple wars to protect central banking interests. The manipulation of interest rates by Fed leaders has also led to generations that consume and do not save, thus reducing the ability of retirees to manage their own lives without government pensions or safety nets. By all considerations, the institution is no better than Hitler's Reichstag, and Paul's courage in opposing its continued operation forms the basis of his historical greatness as president

2. Respect for the 1st Amendment

After both "conservative," and "liberal," presidents have proven to follow each others marks step by step when pursuing policies relating to the cessation of individual liberty, Ron Paul will end violations of the 1st Amendment and stop enforcing the Patriot Act through his administration. Unlike many politicians, both past and present, Paul understands that an act by Congress cannot legally suppress the Constitution, thus making laws such as the Patriot Act and others wholly anti-freedom and therefore unacceptable.

3. Free Trade

Ron Paul's presidency will be noted for its pursuit of free trade with all countries, not the cartelization of corporate interests in unfair international boundaries. Rather than hiding behind two-state loathing from the Cold War, Paul believes that America should trade with all nations, including Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Through these changes our economy will expand, leaving relics of leftist extremism such as Castro a lame statue for the past. The congressman would also oppose a North America Union or any other similar trade blocs, thus endorsing truly neoliberal policies which America has too long ignored.

4. Taxes

Paul opposes class warfare and believes in abolishing the Income Tax. Not only will this approach create millions of jobs, but its falls in line with the critical aspect of empowering Americans to take responsibility for their own lives rather than granting more power to the government. As with the Federal Reserve, lower taxes will promote saving and investment, influencing Americans in a meaningful way to prepare for their futures instead of leaving it at the feet of a broken federal authority.

5. War on Drugs

America has spent the last two decades fighting an endless war on drug distribution that costs more than simply decriminalizing--or even legalizing--the substances. Rather than spending billions and losing countless lives in law enforcement and civilian populations, Ron Paul will devolve power to the states and end this senseless pursuit of a moral high ground once and for all. With the unspent money remaining, America will secure the borders and focus on real homeland security--not societal paranoia.

6. Immigration Security

Both major political parties have argued for radical approaches to immigration control. On one side, Republicans propose an expensive fence and guest worker programs to deal with the massive immigration problem. Democrats prefer amnesty and instate tuition benefits for illegal alien students (or former Democrats like Rick Perry). Ron Paul's presidency will oversee the halting of benefits for all those who come here illegally, thus helping our border hospitals and saving America billions of dollars each year. A Paul Administration would handle this issue sensibly; not by spending billions more simply to feel safe inside the head.

7. Humble Foreign Policy

In stark contrast to both major party leaders, Paul will end frivolous intervention around the world to restore American prosperity. As a veteran and Air Force flight surgeon, the congressman understands the importance of human life better than most public officials, and he will fail to send troops into battle like pawns in a suicidal scheme to save face or secure corporatist interests. His administration will avoid unnecessary intervention and push for a view on foreign affairs where America responds when attacked--not to endorse a ridiculous notion of expensive democracy in the Middle East. Under his watch foreign aid to murderous regimes such as the Palestinian National Authority and North Korea will be ended, thus preventing the expansion of violence around the globe.

8. Upholding the Oath

Most importantly, Ron Paul will respect the oath he takes when sworn into office in 2013. To the congressman, an oath is before God, not a simple recitation that can be bended according to political expediency. With him at the helm, Americans will once again believe in the Constitution as the foundation of this country's political culture, and a new generation will be born that understands limits of the government. Should we as a nation reclaim this committal to founding principle, there is not end to what we may accomplish as one united country, standing together as a whole, and not splintered among warring factions.

Today, Texas Congressman Ron Paul became the first GOP president candidate to call for criminal charges against Eric Holder.

Speaking to syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Paul called for Holder to be "immediately fired." Paul went on to say "I think it was criminal," and called the operation a "false flag." He said that there needs to be an immediate investigation into Holder himself, and said Holder "deserves charges."

Paul went on to discuss a now infamous memo from White House lawyers who claim Obama has the right to assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world. Paul stated that Obama is trying to "legalize Martial law."

Paul also mocked the FBI's claim of uncovering an Iranian assignation plot against the Saudi ambassador. He said the man arrested "may never be tried because they don't want the truth to come out."

The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%.

That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week.

Meanwhile, support for Paul is on the rise, particularly among younger voters and voters who identify themselves as "new." Among likely caucus-goers under age 45, Paul leads Gingrich 30-16. The numbers are nearly flipped for caucus-goers over age 45.

But what Paul's fans lack in age and experience, they make up for in enthusiasm — 77% of Paul supporters say they are definitely going to vote for him, compared to 54% for Gingrich.

Interestingly, Romney's support is also stronger than Gingrich's in Iowa, despite Romney's relative absence from the state this fall — 67% of Romney supporters say they will definitely be voting for him.

In fact, there is strong evidence that Romney actually could have been a major factor in Iowa this year, if he had not stayed away from the state. As PPP notes, only 44% of Romney's 2008 supporters plan to vote for him this time — which means if he had just managed to keep his support from last time, he would be leading in Iowa by now.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Have Americans read Dr. Ron Paul's written plan for the country? Are Americans ready to upset the apple cart in a controlled and methodical way for the betterment of the greater good? The main source I am referencing here is Dr. Ron Paul's website, so that we can debate his priorities and proposed approaches. I have paraphrased items from his site; however, I encourage the reader to thoroughly review all the links.

Here is Dr. Ron Paul's 11-point plan:

11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.

9. Workers' Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.

8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.

7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens' medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.

6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, "So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women's reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women's reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states' rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for states to make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pills, RU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.

Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.

Also:

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

In short, Dr. Paul's plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.

4. National Defense: Dr. Paul's approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism -- in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.

3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he'd like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don't end up with both.

2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul's ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers' dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn't have to.

1. Economy: Dr. Paul's plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America's debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.

In this discussion, I request that emotional reactions and sarcasm be set aside. The goal is an accurate, clear and truthful dialogue. We are blessed with a group of knowledgeable Americans making comments here. What I want to suggest is that we discuss what is best for the greater good for our country, not just for ourselves.

Any presidential choice we make involves a risk. Is he lying and manipulating to win the election, or is he honest? Will she serve American citizens ethically and honorably as president? The U.S. Constitution was created to unite the states in our country in certain crucial areas, like national defense, while allowing states their autonomy and uniqueness. In the spirit of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, good character is the most essential quality to bring to our government. Dr. Paul combines solid character and backbone with seasoned wisdom and experience. He has not compromised the values and principles that America holds dear.

If you are not going to register as a Republican and vote for Dr. Ron Paul in the primary, who do you think is better, and for what reasons? Don't state what you dislike about Dr. Paul's plan. It is easy to shoot someone's ideas down.

"[At times of hysteria] that is all the more reason the President has to speak out for what is right. Otherwise, he's got no reason being in the White House. The President has to do the leading in a case like that. I've said before, the President is the only person in the government who represents the whole people. There are some who can afford to hire lobbyists and others to represent their special interests, but the President isn't elected to pull strings for anybody. He's elected to be the lobbyist for everybody in the United States. And, he is, too, if he's any good."
--Harry Truman (from Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, by Merle Miller, Tess Press 1974)

Monday, September 19, 2011

Economist Bob Chapman of the International Forecaster spoke in an interview on Sunday, September 18th and laid out a dire scenario for the American people regarding to the path we are headed towards financially. After describing what the state of the economy in America is now during his interview, and comparing it to previous empires' and their declines in history, Mr. Chapman made the comment that the only hope for change would come from Americans electing Ron Paul in 2012, and men like him who would vie to alter the statist course the country is headed for.

…These people are playing for everything. They want to win, and enslave you… those of you who are young and not ill. Just like in ancient Egypt, and in Rome where they did the same thing. So that’s where we’re headed. I hope… that a year from November Ron Paul can get elected with people like him… in office. And then, maybe we can make some changes. But in lieu of that, and if that doesn’t exist, cause he doesn’t win, your goose is cooked. And you either stay, and live like an animal, or get out of the country, cause that’s how bad it’s gonna get. – Bob Chapman radio interview

Bob Chapman is an economist, stockbroker, journalist, and forecaster with over 51 years in the industry. Starting in 1960 as a stockbroker, and having been trained in the Army as a counter-intelligence officer, his articles and opinions have been printed or re-printed in over 200 publications, and he is considered one of the most respected forecasters in the market. He currently is owner and editor of The International Forecaster, a compendium of information on business, finance, economics and social and political issues worldwide, which reaches 10,000 investors and brokers monthly directly, and parts of his publication are picked up by 60 different websites weekly exposing his ideas to over 10 million investors a week.

Mr. Chapman is not alone in his belief that the economy and the government are pushing towards a tyranical end. Other well known forecasters such as Gerald Celente, and Peter Schiff have determined that the present course of the global economy, the destruction of the banking system, and the political chaos taking place in the Middle East, Europe, and even the United States, are directed towards the creation of a single global government and economy.

In each forecast, all three men believe that Ron Paul is the only answer to changing the course American is on economically. No other presidential candidate has the ideas, plan, and the will to implement them to stave off the inevitable destruction of capitalism, the middle class, and the creation of a global structure where the only two classes will be the elites, and the poor.

As when billionaire investor Jim Rogers recently put his backing towards Ron Paul for the 2012 presidency, so too is economist and forecaster Bob Chapman joining him and others in seeing no alternative for America's economic future unless the Congressman from Texas is elected in 2012.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Grammy award-winning musician Barry Manilow told The Daily Caller that he agrees with “just about everything” 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul says, calling him a “solid” contender for the highest office in the land.

“I like him. I like what he says, I do. I like what he says. I think he’s solid,” said Manilow, who confirmed to TheDC in an interview at the Capitol on Thursday that he contributed to Paul’s last campaign for president.

“I agree with just about everything he says. What can I tell you?” Manilow added.

Manilow was on Capitol Hill speaking at a briefing on atrial fibrillation or AFib, a heart disease that affects over 2.5 million Americans. Manilow, who has fought the disease for over 15 years, encouraged lawmakers to support H.R. 295, a bill that would advance AFib research and education in part by “encouraging education programs that promote collaboration among the Federal health agencies and that increase public and clinician awareness of atrial fibrillation, including risk assessment, screening, treatment, and appropriate clinical management.”

“The public needs to know — they need to know as much about atrial fibrillation as they do about cancer and diabetes,” Manilow told TheDC.

“Atrial fibrillation has been the low man on the totem pole and so we’re just trying to get more visibility about this particular disease and how dangerous this could be.”

Manilow was also asked if he is satisfied with what the federal government has put forth in the health care law signed by President Obama in March 2010.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

A good rule of thumb I’ve discovered is that critics who claim Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t understand the Constitution are themselves the ones whose knowledge is deficient.

For example, Scott McKeag, a teacher in the Iowa City School District, came down hard on the congressman in these pages for denying that the federal government has a role in education according to the Constitution. The congressman further believes that education is better managed by states, localities, and parents.

McKeag cites the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause to justify the federal Department of Education, which opened its doors in 1980.

Let’s tick off the problems with this howler.

First, Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 33 that the necessary and proper clause was inserted merely for clarification and did not augment federal power at all. He even said the Constitution would be exactly the same if that clause were “entirely obliterated.” Appealing to the clause to carry the burden of justifying federal involvement in education — which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution — is asking it to do much heavier lifting than even Hamilton, the broadest of constitutional constructionists, thought it could bear.

Second, George Nicholas, future attorney general of Kentucky, told the Virginia ratifying convention (and remember, according to James Madison, it is to the ratifying conventions that we turn for constitutional interpretation) that the clause “only enables it [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to it, but gives it no additional power.” Many other statements to this effect can be found in the documentary records of the ratifying conventions.

In other words, citing this clause for authority to establish a Department of Education only begs the question, since McKeag has not first established education as one of “the powers given to it.”

Third, in numerous state ratifying conventions, the people were assured the federal government would have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it. Power over education is obviously not expressly delegated.

Fourth, Thomas Jefferson explained in 1791 that “necessary and proper” had to mean really necessary, as opposed to merely convenient, in carrying out the enumerated powers if the clause were not to swallow up the whole Constitution and defeat its very purpose. Because education is nowhere listed among the enumerated powers, it wouldn’t survive even the first stage of Jefferson’s test.

McKeag only makes things worse when he appeals to Jefferson: “President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, championed this idea from his time in the Virginia Legislature.”

Ouch. Here’s what Jefferson actually said: “An amendment to our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education.”

Got that? An amendment to our Constitution. That means federal involvement in education is unconstitutional given the text of the document as it stands. In other words, Jefferson held precisely the view that Ron Paul holds today.

McKeag has no better luck when he tries to claim Madison. Madison warned people in 1792 that if they interpreted the general welfare clause too broadly, we’d wind up with the federal government taking “into its own hands the education of children,” an outcome he considered absurd. Ouch again, Mr. McKeag.

The rest of the article argues from the precedent, “Hey, lots of politicians have thought the people were too stupid to run their own schools and needed to be taxed for the privilege of being bossed around by their Washington betters.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t answer the question: Is it constitutional?

Before filling the heads of Iowan children with any more nonsense, Scott McKeag might consider leaving Ron Paul alone and spending a teensy bit more time reading.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., who holds a Ph.D. in history from Columbia University, is a New York Times bestselling author of 11 books.